OCR Specification focus:
‘extent of disturbances, finance of the war, administration of justice; the functioning of central government, the exchequer, coinage; Stephen and the Church; Theobald and canon law; changing relations with the.’
The Civil War of 1139–1154, often called The Anarchy, saw England’s institutions tested by conflict. Structures of government, finance, justice, and church-state relations were deeply affected.
Extent of Disturbances
The civil war created profound instability that undermined central authority. Widespread disorder reshaped the functioning of administration and governance.
Baronial autonomy expanded as magnates seized castles and coined money.
Law enforcement collapsed in many regions, leaving communities vulnerable to violence.
Regional variations: Some areas remained relatively stable, while others suffered devastation.
The Anarchy: The period of civil war between King Stephen and the Empress Matilda (1139–1154), marked by contested succession and widespread disorder.
This instability weakened royal control and tested the resilience of England’s central institutions.
Finance of the War
War demanded unprecedented expenditure, and the monarchy relied heavily on financial measures that strained royal resources.
Extraordinary taxation was imposed to support prolonged campaigns.
Feudal obligations were exploited, with increased demands for knight service and payments in lieu.
Sale of offices and privileges became common, undermining traditional structures of service and loyalty.
The financial pressures deepened resentment among barons and clergy, weakening loyalty to Stephen’s cause.
Administration of Justice
Justice was a central pillar of royal authority, yet during the war it became inconsistent and contested.
Local courts were often dominated by barons acting independently.
Royal justice weakened as itinerant justices were unable to operate securely.
Abuse of legal authority became widespread, with rival claimants issuing conflicting charters.
Common Law: A body of law developed through royal justice, relying on precedent and central oversight rather than local custom.
The war significantly hindered the growth of Common Law, delaying centralisation and leaving legal practice fragmented.
Functioning of Central Government
Despite disruption, aspects of central government continued, though often compromised.
Exchequer operations declined in efficiency, but some financial record-keeping persisted.
Royal household remained a hub of administration, yet was often itinerant due to insecurity.
Justiciar’s role weakened, reflecting reduced authority of central officials in contested regions.
The erosion of central governance allowed barons to establish semi-independent power bases, further fragmenting authority.
The Exchequer
The Exchequer (the central financial institution) was particularly affected by instability.
Pipe rolls, records of royal income and expenditure, ceased during the worst years of conflict.
Pipe rolls were annual Exchequer audit records, listing sheriff and other accounts. This facsimile from 1174–5 shows the columnar Latin entries typical of the genre. Although slightly later than Stephen’s reign, it illustrates the documentary form disrupted during the Anarchy. Source
Revenue collection became inconsistent, undermining fiscal stability.
Local treasuries sometimes replaced royal control, limiting the Crown’s reach.
Exchequer: The central department responsible for managing royal finances, established under Henry I and central to medieval governance.
Its decline symbolised the weakening of royal authority during Stephen’s reign.
Coinage
Coinage was both a financial tool and a symbol of royal authority.
Baronial coinage emerged, with magnates minting their own coins in defiance of the king.
Debasement and poor-quality coinage spread, undermining economic stability.
Royal monopoly on minting was fatally weakened, reflecting the loss of central control.
The corruption of coinage illustrated the disintegration of traditional structures of governance and economy.
Stephen and the Church
The Church played a vital role in sustaining legitimacy, but Stephen’s relationship with ecclesiastical authorities was strained.
Initial support: Stephen secured his coronation with backing from leading bishops.
Deteriorating relations: His treatment of bishops, including the arrest of Roger of Salisbury, alienated clerical support.
Church neutrality: Many church leaders, wary of instability, attempted to mediate between rivals.
The weakening of Church loyalty further undermined Stephen’s position.
Theobald and Canon Law
Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury was a significant figure in shaping ecclesiastical policy during the conflict.
Promotion of canon law: Theobald encouraged the application of Church law, strengthening ecclesiastical courts.
Illuminated leaf from the Decretals of Gregory IX showing a priest solemnising a marriage, surrounded by text and glosses. Such books codified procedures and jurisdictions used by ecclesiastical courts. Extra detail: Italian, c.1300, later than the Anarchy but representative of canon-law tradition shaping English church courts. Source
Conflict with Stephen: Theobald’s refusal to support Stephen’s policies at times emphasised Church independence.
Influence of Rome: The Papacy’s reformist agenda, reinforced by Theobald, further limited royal interference in ecclesiastical matters.
Canon Law: The body of laws and regulations developed by the Church to govern its members, derived from councils, papal decrees, and ecclesiastical tradition.
This emphasis on canon law contributed to the growing separation of Church and Crown in matters of governance.
Changing Relations with the Papacy
The wider international Church increasingly shaped English ecclesiastical politics.
Papal reform movement promoted free elections for bishops, challenging royal influence.
Stephen’s concessions to papal demands reflected his weakened political position.
Theobald’s ties to Rome bolstered his authority against royal pressure.
This period entrenched the Papacy’s influence in England, a shift that would shape subsequent monarchs’ struggles with ecclesiastical independence.
FAQ
Roger of Salisbury was a skilled administrator who had been central to the development of the Exchequer under Henry I. His dismissal by Stephen in 1139 removed an experienced statesman and destabilised government structures.
The loss weakened the Crown’s administrative capacity and contributed to growing baronial independence, as Stephen lacked competent officials to oversee justice and finance effectively.
The degree of disruption varied by region.
Areas loyal to either Stephen or Matilda, such as parts of Kent or the Angevin heartlands, often retained firmer order.
Urban centres with strong self-government, such as London, maintained some stability due to local economic interests.
Regions less directly contested saw fewer sieges and less baronial rivalry.
This uneven impact highlights the fragmented nature of royal authority during the Anarchy.
Sheriffs were royal officials tasked with collecting revenue and enforcing law locally.
During the civil war:
Some sheriffs remained loyal and tried to uphold central authority.
Others exploited the conflict, retaining revenues or siding with regional barons.
In contested areas, sheriff authority collapsed altogether, forcing communities to rely on local lords or informal arrangements.
Their inconsistent performance illustrates how the war eroded the Crown’s ability to enforce governance uniformly.
With secular justice weakened, church courts filled gaps in legal oversight.
They adjudicated disputes over marriage, inheritance, and morality.
Litigants sometimes preferred ecclesiastical courts, as they offered greater consistency and stability than royal justice.
The spread of canon law, promoted by Archbishop Theobald, strengthened the Church’s jurisdictional reach.
This shift reinforced the independence of the Church in legal matters during the Anarchy.
The appearance of baronial coinage led to uncertainty and instability in trade.
Poorly struck or debased coins circulated, reducing trust in monetary exchange.
Merchants faced difficulties when dealing across regions with differing coin issues.
Inflation and reduced purchasing power harmed peasants and townspeople alike.
This breakdown of a unified currency was a visible sign of weakened central control and affected everyday economic life.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Name two ways in which the Exchequer was affected by the civil war under King Stephen.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each valid point (maximum 2 marks).
Possible answers:Pipe rolls ceased during the worst years of conflict.
Revenue collection became inconsistent.
Local treasuries sometimes replaced royal control.
Efficiency of Exchequer operations declined.
Question 2 (5 marks)
Explain how coinage during the civil war reflected the weakening of royal authority.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): General statements about coinage with little specific detail, e.g. “Money was affected by the war” or “Coinage was poor.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Some accurate detail on the impact of the war on coinage, e.g. “Barons minted their own coins and the quality of money declined.”
Level 3 (5 marks): Developed explanation linking coinage to the loss of central control, e.g. “Baronial coinage emerged as magnates issued their own coins in defiance of the king. This undermined the royal monopoly and showed that Stephen had lost control over one of the most important symbols of authority, further weakening central government.”
